Q13 - Many symptoms of mental illness

[yoohoo081]

I'm baffled as to why C is the cocorrect an answer.is the last sentence the conclusion?
Can somone help me with this question please?

[ilona11223344]

I'm baffled as to why C is the cocorrect an answer.is the last sentence the conclusion?
Can somone help me with this question please?

Here is how I see it:

Causal Argument

Evidence says that organic factors affect mental illness & that there is a varied distribution of the symptoms of people with mental illness.

Conclusion says that the organic factors mentioned in 1st sentence that affect the symptoms of mental illness are not evenly distributed

Do you see the flaw? Assumption here is that there is no other cause

If (C) is true, we can't make any judgments about organic factors being not evenly distributed

[yoohoo081]

Do you see the flaw? Assumption here is that there is no other cause

If (C) is true, we can't make any judgments about organic factors being not evenly distributed

Okay, so you are saying flaw is that view that there is no other cause.
Then how is E not the correct answer or B? both of these answers consider "different causes".

[LSAT-Chang]

I'm really confused with this Q as well. I originally chose (B) but I didn't even understand what the flaw was, so I just had to pick (B) and move on. I would love to hear some explanation on what the "flaw" is........ I personally didn't see a causal argument going on here. Is it implicit?? The conclusion is about how something is not distributed evenly around the globe -- how does this imply a causal argument??

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I'm not going to try to refute "causation" as the implication of the conclusion here. But I would agree with some of you who have posted earlier that it's tough to see.

Here's what I've done to try to help see causation on the LSAT.

1. Language cues: due to, because of, as a result of, induces, stimulates, causes, has led to, contributes to, affects, has the effect of, if you want to ___, then you should ____, etc...

2. Explanations: evidence represents an "observed phenomenon" and the conclusion represents an "explanation" for how or why it happened.

This seems to be an explanation for the tremendous variation in the incidence of mental illness. The explanation offered is "organic factors" when it easily could have been something else that would have explained the variation in different countries.

When the argument is structured as an explanation, to strengthen eliminate a competing explanation. To weaken provide a competing explanation. This is a flaw question and the correct answer says that it fails to consider that some assumption of the argument is not true. This argument assumed that something else was not the explanation for the variation and answer choice (C) points out the argument's assumption.

Lets look at the incorrect answer choices:

(A) is irrelevant. The different types of mental illnesses shouldn't matter since the argument tracks all types of mental illnesses and never distinguishes them
(B) is tempting but not quite. It might seem to present an alternative explanation, but of what? This would be an alternative explanation of the deficiency in a compound in the brain - not an alternative explanation of the variation in the distribution of mental illness.
(D) is too strong. It doesn't assume that "any change change in brain chemistry" will have such a result - maybe that some do though.
(E) relies on an additional assumption that organic factors are not physical phenomena - which need not be assumed.

Let me know if you still have further questions on this one!

[zainrizvi]

I also struggled with connecting the pieces of this argument, so I've written up a bit of an explanation

Argument says that organic factors affect symptoms of mental illnesses. Then it says that there is a variation of the symptoms observed all over the world, leading to the conclusion that the organic factors are not distributed evenly around the globe .

(C) brings up the issue of how cultures can interact with mental illnesses to produce a variety of symptoms. In essence this is saying, hey, the reason the symptoms are different is not because of a weird distribution of organic factors, but because the differences in culture affecting it.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Nice work, that's right! Though instead of saying

the reason the symptoms are different is not because of a weird distribution of organic factors, but because the differences in culture affecting it.

I'd say, "the reason the symptoms are different may not be a result of a weird distribution of organic factors, but rather the differences in culture affecting it.

It's slightly less certain and the argument's big problem is how certain it is. We probably shouldn't commit the same error in the other direction. Notice answer choice (B) just suggests that it's a possible alternative reason.

[shaynfernandez]

So in this question we are looking for an alternate explanation?
I say that because I chose B, my reasoning was that if nutrition, that also affects brain compound defienency, is different in each country (due to diet, availability of certain foods,etc.) then that is why we have different symptoms. So... I am not looking for an answer that explains why there are numerous symptoms?

[alandman]

This is how I got to the right answer:

B) If the reasoning neglects the possibility as stated in this answer choice, then if anything, it strengthens the argument because it gives us a possibility as to why the symptoms of mental illnesses are not distributed evenly around the globe -- nutritional factors affect organic factors which in turn affect symptoms.

C) This choice on the other hand weakens the argument because it allows us to infer that perhaps the organic factors are evenly distributed, BUT the symptoms vary from culture to culture because of cultural factors. In other words, the argument provides a possible different explanation as to why there's this variation in symptoms.

[antarias90]

Alandman: I really like that explanation of B as a somewhat reinforcing answer instead of a weakening answer. Everyone's explanation of C is right on too. Thanks for all the help/debate !

[einuoa]

Just to add a bit more to the previous explanations;

B) If assumed, it proves that the conclusion itself is true but doesn't prove that the premise proves that the conclusion is true. It doesn't provide any link between the premise and the conclusion.

[nnn2108]

Could another way to approach this kind of question be to simply negate the conclusion and look for an answer that explains the negated conclusion.

For example, if we assume that the organic factors are actually distributed evenly, which one of the answers would help explain why the symptoms show up differently.


In that way, C is the only possible answer.

[robinzhang7]

I was wondering if (C) undermines the premise: organic factors affect mental illness symptoms.

We are also given the effect: variations in mental illness symptoms

Conclusion: variations in organic factors

Wouldn't this be a valid argument since the premise explicitly gives us a causal relationship between the two?

[jenniferreisig]

I was stuck on B & C. After reading this post I can clearly see what is wrong with B and what is right with C. My explanation is as follows:

B. Nutritional factors that affect deficiencies in compounds have no effect on the conclusion because deficiencies in compounds are only an example of organic factors. There could be many other examples of organic factors that potentially cause symptoms of mental illness - keeping the conclusion in tact and not weakening it.

C. To weaken the explanation in the stimulus we need to attack either organic factors or symptoms. Can that link be weakened? C weakens that link by adding a competing explanation - cultural differences. If cultural differences effect how symptoms manifest then maybe cultural differences explain the variation between countries in the incidence of symptoms. It is possible that the distribution of organic factors may be evenly distributed but masked by cultural differences.

It seems clear to me now. I just wish I could get to this point MUCH faster. lol

[maryadkins]

I'm with you on your reasoning on (C).

I think there's an easier, clearer way to rule out (B). (B) says that nutritional factors contribute to deficiencies in compounds in the brain. How does this not weaken? Because we're now back to talking about deficiencies in compounds in the brain again! We didn't actually get an alternate explanation in (B) for the variation that DOESN'T involve deficiencies in compounds in the brain. We got something that influences deficiencies in compounds in the brain, and we're at the starting line again.

Good job!

[redskateboard]

I think it helps on this question to take a step back and to understand the generic form of the argument.

It's saying that:
1. factor A influences factor B.
2. factor B varies
Conclusion: factor A also varies

replace A with compounds in brain
and B with symptoms

This is not a good argument!

C) attacks this very cleanly and says factor C could be responsible for the variations observed in factor B.

[ChaimL393]

What is tricky about this question, for me at least, is that the fallacy lies in an unstated premise that is implied by the author's conclusion. The author's conclusion is that the mere fact of variation in symptom-frequency implies that something else ("organic factors") is not evenly distributed. But notice that this implies that if these "factors" were indeed equally distributed, then there wouldn't be any, or as much, observed variation. Thus, the flaw here is that the author assumes, without any justification, that nothing other than the posited cause (organic factors) could have produced the result in question (the observed variation between countries). Answer-choice C suggests a counterexample to the author's implicit argument that if even distribution, then no variation (if A then not B). Yet if cultural (non-organic) factors are at play, then it is possible that both even distributions AND variation (A and B).